Peder Halvorson v. P. Puranik, No. 13-2155 (4th Cir. 2013)

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-2155 PEDER HALVORSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. P. PURANIK; BECKLEY ARH HOSPITAL, Defendants - Appellees. No. 13-2156 PEDER D. HALVORSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. RALEIGH 25801, GENERAL HOSPITAL, 1710 Harper Defendant - Appellee. No. 13-2157 PEDER HALVORSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. Road, Beckley, WV BECKLEY ARH HOSPITAL, Beckley, WV 25802, Defendant - Appellee. No. 13-2158 PEDER HALVORSON, Plaintiff Appellant, and CHRISTOPHER HALVORSON, Witness; JOSH FAKESS, Witness, Plaintiffs, v. BECKLEY CITY POLICE; BADGE #229; OFFICER Officer Called for Backup, WILHITE, and the Defendants - Appellees. No. 13-2159 PEDER DWAYNE HALVORSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. J. O. OTHMAN, M.D., RCP, Board Certified in Neurology, Defendant - Appellee. 2 Appeals from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Beckley. Irene C. Berger, District Judge. (5:12-cv-05430; 5:12-cv-05431; 5:12-cv-05432; 5:12-cv-05433; 5:12-cv-06775) Submitted: November 14, 2013 Decided: November 20, 2013 Before KING, SHEDD, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Peder Halvorson, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 3 PER CURIAM: In these consolidated appeals, Peder Halvorson appeals the district court s judgments adopting the magistrate judge s report and recommendations and dismissing his complaints. The district court referred the cases to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. recommended § that 636(b)(1)(B) the (2012). complaints be The magistrate dismissed for judge failing to state a claim, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(b)(ii) (2012). The magistrate judge advised Halvorson that the failure to file timely objections to the reports could waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the recommendation. The magistrate timely judge s filing of specific recommendation is objections necessary to to a preserve appellate review of the substance of that recommendation when the parties have noncompliance. Cir. 1985); Halvorson objections also waived after and legal Thomas of v. appellate receiving dismiss the appeal. facts warned the consequences of Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845 46 (4th see has been Arm, review proper 474 by notice. U.S. 140 failing (1985). to file Accordingly, we We dispense with oral argument because the contentions are 4 adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 5